edit_message

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description merely paraphrases the tool name and gives no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, notification behavior, or whether message metadata changes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at just four words, and it avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it is under-specified for practical use, so it is not an effective use of the limited text; it could have been expanded with useful context while still remaining concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple edit operation with three parameters, all required and documented. However, without any behavioral details or usage guidance, and with no output schema, an agent lacks essential context about when to use this tool and what the consequences are. This falls short of being complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (chatId, newText, messageId) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Edit an existing message' clearly states the verb (edit) and resource (message), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message and delete_message. However, it does not specify what aspect is edited (e.g., text) or add any scope beyond the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool instead of alternatives like delete_message or send_message. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.